Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Phoenix v. Camfield, 400 P.2d 115.

36 citing documents.

Groener v. Briehl 661 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Groener v. Briehl 661 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Bliss v. Treece 658 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1983
Bliss v. Treece 658 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1983
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Lowman v. City of Mesa 611 P.2d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Lowman v. City of Mesa 611 P.2d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
(dips in street); , (improper highway mark *592 ers); , (dips in street); , (raised section of public sidewa
George v. Fox West Coast Theatres 519 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
George v. Fox West Coast Theatres 519 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Brand v. J. H. Rose Trucking Company, supra
Santanello v. Cooper 468 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Santanello v. Cooper 468 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n v. Cor-num, , City of Douglas v. Burden, 24 Ariz.
Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
: “ ‘The requirements for recovery against a municipality for injury from a highway defect * * * are commonly as follows: “ ‘1.
Arnold v. Frigid Food Express Co. 453 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Arnold v. Frigid Food Express Co. 453 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Esquivel v. Nancarrow 450 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1969
State v. Hess 449 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Hess 449 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
O'DONNELL v. Maves 436 P.2d 577 Ariz. 1968
O'DONNELL v. Maves 436 P.2d 577 Ariz. 1968
Patterson v. City of Phoenix 436 P.2d 613 Ariz. 1968
Patterson v. City of Phoenix 436 P.2d 613 Ariz. 1968
See, , (negligence); Hargrove v. Town of Cocoa Beach, 96 So.2d 130 , 60 A.L.R.2d 1193 (Fla.1957) (negligence); City of Miami v. Simpson, 172 So.2d 435 (Fla.1965) (intentional torts); City of Miami Beach v. Nye, 156 So.2d 205 (Fla.
State v. Watson 436 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Watson 436 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 435 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 435 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
acter or extent of the defect in the street or sidewalk necessary to form the basis for actionable negligence, but each case must stand upon its own particular facts.” (Emphasis added) *575 If the condition of the street is such that reasonable men could arrive at different conclusions as to whether the highway was unreasonably dangerous, a jury question is presented, , not liability as a matter of law.
Brand v. JH Rose Trucking Company 427 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1967
Brand v. JH Rose Trucking Company 427 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1967
Koff v. Johnson, 1 Ariz.App.
Tucson Rapid Transit Co. v. Tocci 414 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Tucson Rapid Transit Co. v. Tocci 414 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Appellant contends further that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the law regarding “unavoidable accident.” Since the trial of this case, it has been definitely established by our Supreme Court that “* * * it is always error to give an instruction on unavoidable accident * *
Trickel v. Rainbo Baking Company of Phoenix 412 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1966
Trickel v. Rainbo Baking Company of Phoenix 412 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1966
where we stated: “ * * * that while it is always error to give an instruction on unavoidable accident, a plaintiff must show prejudice in the giving of such an instruction.
Glass v. Carlberg 409 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Koff v. Johnson 401 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Koff v. Johnson 401 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
decided March 11, 1965, the Supreme Court said: “ , , 767: “ 'There may be more than one proximate cause of an accident if each was an efficient one without which the injuries resulting would not have occurred.